Changes in drug policies in the Netherlands

and their impact on drug markets

Marianne van Ooyen-HoubenEdward KleemansESC PortoSeptember 2015

Subjects

1. Characteristics of the Dutch drug policy

2. Recent changes in policy

3. Impact of changes on drug markets

4. Conclusions

MethodsReview of available evidence:

• Evaluation studies• Monitoring studies• Statistics from police and public prosecutor• Policy documents

Important sources:

Van Laar, M., & Van Ooyen, M. (2009). Evaluation of the Dutch drug policy. Utrecht/The Hague: Trimbos Institute/WODC.

Van Laar, M., & Van Ooyen, M. (eds.) (2014). National Drug Monitor. Utrecht/The Hague: Trimbos Institute/WODC (annual reports).

1. Characteristics of Dutch drug policy

• Pragmatic: Drugs cannot be eradicated, only contained

• Health-oriented: Focus on public health and minimalization of risks of drug use to the health of users and to society

• Prevent marginalization and criminalization of drug users

Main features of Dutch policy• Use of drugs is not a criminal act

• Possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use is (in principle) not prosecuted

• Cultivation of cannabis for personal use is (in principle) not prosecuted

• Sale of cannabis in coffee shops is not prosecuted (‘tolerated’)

• Supply Reduction + Demand Reduction + Harm Reduction

Image of the Dutch drug policy

How did the tolerant policy work?

Positive developments

• Use of highly addictive drugs remained low (crack, heroin, amphetamines)

• Low rate of infectuous diseases among injecting drug users• Low death rates among drug users• Coffee shops kept cannabis users away from hard drug use (crack,

cocaine, amphetamines, heroin)• Trends in cannabis use in line with other countries (no heavier use,

no lengthier using careers)

Negative developments

• Drug-related nuisance

• Organized crime in production and trafficking

• High prevalence of use among youths (cannabis, ecstasy)

• Drug tourism

2. Changes in drug policy

More vigorous approaches

More law enforcement

Less tolerance

Changes

Announced in 1995

Only gradually...only slowly...

Counteracted by health oriented attitude

But...surely

Estimated annual public expenditure for enforcement of drug offences

Police arrests for Opium Act offences

Drug related criminal investigations into serious forms of organized crime (source: National Police, 2015)

3. Impact of changes on drug markets

Case: coffee shop policy

More vigorous tolerance criteria for coffeeshops

1991: first tolerance criteria:- No advertising - No hard drugs in the coffee shop- No public nuisance around the shop- No more than 30 grams sale per customer per transaction

1995: more restrictions- Max of 500 grams stock- No entry for minors under 18 years- 30 grams → 5 grams

2012: radical entry restrictions:- Private club: access only for members- Residence criterion: membership only for residents of the Netherlands

Evaluation study

Baseline assessment, follow up at 6 months, follow up at 18 months.

Survey among coffee shop visitors, street survey among cannabis users, interviews with local experts, field study, survey among people living in the vicinity of coffee shops.

‘Experimental condition’ (south) and ‘comparison condition’ (other provinces).

Van Ooyen-Houben, M., & Van der Giessen, M. (2014). De implementatie van het Ingezetenencriterium volgens de betrokken actoren. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 49-78). The Hague: WODC.

Nijkamp, R,, Mennes, R., & Bieleman, B. (2014). Coffeeshopbezoek. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 97-130). The Hague: WODC.

Korf, D.J., Benschop, A., Nabben, T., & Wouters, M. (2014). De illegale gebruikersmarkt. In: Van Ooyen-Houben, M., B. Bieleman, & D.J. Korf (2014). Coffeeshops, toerisme en lokale markt (pp. 133-186). The Hague: WODC.

Purchase in coffee shops in 2012 (combined results, baseline and follow up I)

Purchase outside coffee shops in 2012 (combined results)

®Private club criterion abolished after 6 months (end of 2012)

Purchase in coffee shops 2012-2013(combined results, baseline and 2 follow up assessments)

Purchase outside coffee shops 2012-2013

Frequency of cannabis use (mean, last month, street survey, n=942, 812, 907)

Impact on cannabis retail market:

• Displacement in supply (coffee shops illegal market) (effect)

• No effect on use of cannabis

Case: ecstasy (MDMA)

XTC PRODUCTION PLACE

2001: “A combined effort against ecstasy” (policy programme)

Outcomes: Production falling(source: National Police)

Less MDMA in tablets (source:

• No PMK seizures in 2008-2009-2010

Decreasing use

But...

• Recovery since 2010

Dismantled labs, warehouses and dumpings, 2000-2014

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ... 20140

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

production locationswarehousesdumpings

• Displacement to pre-precursors (safrole, PMK glycidate)

Average MDMA concentration in ‘ecstasy’ tablets (mg)(source: monitoring system Trimbos Institute)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

20

40

60

80

100

120

average MDMA concentration (mg)

Prevalence of ecstasy use, 12-18 yr

Impact on ecstasy market

• Temporary effects

• Recovery of supply and use

• Displacement to pre-precursors

4. Conclusion• More vigorous policy works

• Markets react

• But react with displacement

• Effect is limited

• Supply continues, use continues

• Markets are adaptive and resilient

Thank you for your attention!

If you want to read more:

Van Ooyen-Houben, M., & Kleemans, E. (2015). Drug Policy: The “Dutch model”. Crime and Justice: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/crimejustice.ahead-of-print